65 replies to this topic

[Tangle]

What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?

You know that prejudice is defined as something a minority says is prejedice? Well it's similar to that.

[Ron]

And I haven't heard a materialistic answer that refutes God either.

Why would you expect it to?

Because the atheist claims that there is no God. Therefore it is incumbent upon the atheist to provide evidence to support their assertion. Unless you are asserting that there IS a God?

Really? Can you provide these evidences to back up your assertion that "religious beliefs are bunk" then? Or like your other posts, or are you relying on the "saying it's so makes it so" (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum) logical fallacy. Or are you going to merely repeat more slogans?

In time, we'll go through them - be patient grasshopper. But as a general assertion to be going on with, the ToE itself is the evidence that a literal belief in the Christian biblical stories is false. And the bible was thought to be literally true for most of its life. (Hence all the fuss made by Darwin at the time which, from the evidence of this forum, is still causing consternation.)

Evolution is in no way evidence against the literal belief in the Christian historical biblical narrative. Micro evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species, and macroevolution is nothing more than a model. Therefore evolution renders nothing as false, as adaptation within a kind/species falsifies nothing, and “adaptation + missions of years” is nothing more than a hypothesis at best. Hence, all the fuss you made in your opening volley is baseless. Faith laden, yet baseless. But, you may go on repeating your slogans (Assertum Non Est Demonstratum).

So objective reasoning is just a smokescreen then? That's interesting.

Mostly yes. Few people arrive at their beliefs by reason, the vast majority are born into them. If they question any further, they rationalise. (Yes, that's another set of assertions and claims and no I'm not going to thrash google into providing evidence for truisms - you just need to get used to that with me.)

Actually NO… ALL people “arrive at their beliefs by reason”, some just use faulty reasoning. For example:

Where did the universe come from?
Where did life come from?
Where did intelligence come from?

You cannot objectively answer any of those questions from a materialistic atheists worldview. Therefore you are living by faith in your world view hoping beyond hope that your world-view is correct. Yes, you arrived at your world-view by reasoning, but your reasoning is faulty.

And my original belief in atheism until I was in my early twenties wasn't arrived at by reason either, it was learnt as well.

there you go.....

Indeed… Both theism AND atheism are learnt world-views

Atheism has absolutely NO answers.

That would be because all atheism is is a non belief in god. It doesn't pretend to have answers. It doesn't even have questions. Why on earth would you expect it to?

That is absolutely incorrect Tangle, atheism is the belief that there is NO God; this is the standard atheist’s morass. The atheist claims “there is no God”, but the atheist fails to realize that they live by that very belief system.

No, but you did make the claim that you were older than Dawkins. And yet, as were all your other claims, it goes unproven. It seems like the impertinence has been on your behalf.

If you look back, you'll see that despite all your training in empirical scientific method, logic and critical thinking, you leapt to a conclusion based on a pre-concieved bias and not surprisingly, got it wrong ;-)

If you look back, you’ll soon realize that you are still attempting to side-step the issues. Unfortunately for you, we don’t allow trolling, time wasting and equivocating/quibbling.

I didn’t use any pre-conceived biases; I simply pointed out your misunderstanding and continued evasive tactics.

[Ron]

What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?

You know that prejudice is defined as something a minority says is prejedice? Well it's similar to that.

That was a Trollish answer, if ever I heard one... It doesn't even pay to provide a proper definition to people like this.

[Ophiolite]

What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?

I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )

The next responses are to a post earlier in the thread that I think were by gilbo. I typed these in word and lost the original attribution, so if these were another's words I apologise to them and gilbo for misattribution.

No you are wrong. Inferences are not scientific, they are merely opinionated claims.

This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)

If I had a million people infer that the sky was green would that make it green?

Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.

As it turns out the sky is apparently not green. We infer it to be blue (much, but not all of the time) based upon a variety of evidence, subsequently validated.

Now much of what we ‘know’ is ‘known’ by inference. It is telling that the only conclusions drawn from inference that creationists seem to object to are those conclusions that disagree with your dogma. Why is that?

Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis.

You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.

[gilbo12345]

I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )

The next responses are to a post earlier in the thread that I think were by gilbo. I typed these in word and lost the original attribution, so if these were another's words I apologise to them and gilbo for misattribution.

This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)



1.Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.

As it turns out the sky is apparently not green. We infer it to be blue (much, but not all of the time) based upon a variety of evidence, subsequently validated.



2. You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.

1. If you had read the context of where I claimed this, (I assume you did not), then you will see that he was attempting an argumentum ad populus... Most scientists believe X therefore it is true.. My response here was solely intended to show how such a proposition is absurd, truth is not based on a popularity vote.

2. Inferences are only used for a hypothesis, and I stand by that claim. Outside of that they are merely an opinionated assertion since to infer something is to assume something and assumptions are based on our own worldview of reality and what we believe is logical.


Ok what does it mean to be "scientific"

scientific [ˌsaɪənˈtɪfɪk]
adj
1. (prenominal) of, relating to, derived from, or used in science scientific equipment
2. (prenominal) occupied in science scientific manpower
3. conforming with the principles or methods used in science a scientific approach
scientifically adv

http://www.thefreedi....com/scientific


Please show how inferences fit within the "conforming with the principles or methods used in science a scientific approach"... I would suggest that such an approach would infer the scientific method hence how would an inference fit withing the rules of the scientific method..... (Hint: Just being used for the creation of a hypothesis doesn't mean that it is scientific per se)

[gilbo12345]

The mere fact that whilst inferences are used in the hypothesis and that hypothesises alone are not considered scientific and thus should be validated by experimental verification should vindicate what I am saying.

[Ron]

What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?

I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )

I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a mistunderstandings on your part.
Tangle misunderstood the term "NEW Atheist", and claimed to be older than Dawkins. When a few of us clued him into his mistake, insted of accepting his misunderstanding, he attempted to play it off, just as he has been dishonest in others discussion points. It was Tangle who was being impertinent and not giving accurate replies. Now you have gotten yourself all tangeled up in Tangels knotty web.

[Ron]

I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )

The next responses are to a post earlier in the thread that I think were by gilbo. I typed these in word and lost the original attribution, so if these were another's words I apologise to them and gilbo for misattribution.

This is an extraordinary assertion. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to justify this in detail. There is nothing either in general lexical matters, or in specific usage of these radically different terms that justifies such an assertion. (That’s not an inference on my part: it is a simple, direct statement of fact.)



Wholly irrelevant. The number of people making the assertion is unimportant. If a single person were to make this assertion based upon evidence and that evidence were subsequently to be replicated in a variety of conditions then the inference, based upon evidence and subsequent validation, would be shown to be correct.

As it turns out the sky is apparently not green. We infer it to be blue (much, but not all of the time) based upon a variety of evidence, subsequently validated.

Now much of what we ‘know’ is ‘known’ by inference. It is telling that the only conclusions drawn from inference that creationists seem to object to are those conclusions that disagree with your dogma. Why is that?

You seem to agree agree that hypotheses are part of science and therefore inferences to must be a part of science. Yet you say inferences are not scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Are hypotheses not scientific after all, or do you concede that inferences are part of science? Surely you will not seek to claim that we can construct valid (not necessarily correct) hypotheses from an unscientific component? That would be a step of illogic just too far.

Re post 27... You will be enlightened.

[gilbo12345]

Re post 27... You will be enlightened.

I didn't realise you had already (succinctly) covered this, (must have missed the post). Your explanation is much more precise

[Ron]

This is the only warning you'll get on this cico34:
Foul languge is not allowed at this forum.
These are the rules YOU agreed to prior to being allowed to participate in this forum.
Is there any part of this warning that you do not understand?

[Ophiolite]

I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age,

He was most assuredly asked for his age in signing up to the forum, or are you asserting that that requirement is no longer mandatory, or was not so at the time he enrolled. Perhaps you should also check your facts before making false accusations.

In a later post you recommend I refer to your post #27. I have done so and consider it a good example of equivocation. Since that is outlawed on this forum I shall make no further comment in that regard except to commend you on a truly elegant twisting of meaning done with skill and elegance. I was impressed.

[gilbo12345]

He was most assuredly asked for his age in signing up to the forum, or are you asserting that that requirement is no longer mandatory, or was not so at the time he enrolled. Perhaps you should also check your facts before making false accusations.

In a later post you recommend I refer to your post #24. I have done so and consider it a good example of equivocation. Since that is outlawed on this forum I shall make no further comment in that regard except to commend you on a truly elegant twisting of meaning done with skill and elegance. I was impressed.

Yet here you are with misrepresentation..

Ron was talking about people asking for Tangle's name ON THIS THREAD.


Care to validate your assertions of the equivocation of post 27... Asserting something without evidence has little grounding for creditability.... Otherwise I can claim I can fly to the moon with my magical gumboots.

[nuttypiglet]

Actually, although I totally disbelieve macro evolution, I've been considering getting a job in that field. Just think of it. You are given a tooth, or fragment of jawbone and a truck load of clay to make up anything you like. AND you get paid for it. Send me some teeth and clay, I'll make some missing links. Mind you, just like the horse and hominids, they will be shown as nonsense in a few years. You would think it's obvious by now that if you haven't found intermediate species by now, it's unlikely to happen. Let's make a new theory and throw out macro evolution. How about creation, now there's a good idea. Over thousands of years of interference of man with dog/cat breeding I have yet to see a cog or dat at the local pet store.

[Ron]

I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a misunderstandings on your part.
Tangle misunderstood the term "NEW Atheist", and claimed to be older than Dawkins. When a few of us clued him into his mistake, insted of accepting his misunderstanding, he attempted to play it off, just as he has been dishonest in others discussion points. It was Tangle who was being impertinent and not giving accurate replies. Now you have gotten yourself all tangeled up in Tangels knotty web.

He was most assuredly asked for his age in signing up to the forum, or are you asserting that that requirement is no longer mandatory, or was not so at the time he enrolled. Perhaps you should also check your facts before making false accusations.

First – It matters not what age you put in the field at sign up, as you can actually put any age you want (yes, many people lie in that field, as did Tangle; and he admitted to doing so). Further, you CAN INDEED hide it if you did post it, if you don’t want it to appear. AND, if you’ll notice, neither my AGE, nor my BIRTHDAY appear on my posts.

Second – Your comment concerning Tangle being asked his age is neither cogent to the conversation, nor is it within the context of the conversation. It was Tangle that had the misconception on the word “New” in “New Atheism! It had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with HIS age, and I called him on it by pointing out his misunderstanding. And it was Tangle who carried the conversation to the next level when he refused to admit his error (so he could save face). Now you have decided to interpose your misrepresentations onto (and into) the conversation. It’s too bad that you didn’t go back and read the posts, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.

Third – All of my facts check out.

Fourth – Had you NOT cut the pertinent portions of my post out, prior to posting your own reply, you would have easily seen your error. So I reposted it in this reply, to correct any misunderstandings (or intended misrepresentations).

[JayShel]

Otherwise I can claim I can fly to the moon with my magical gumboots.

heartily chuckling ...i don't know why the phrase "magical gumboots" struck me as so funny.

[JayShel]

AND, if you’ll notice, neither my AGE, nor my BIRTHDAY appear on my posts.

Hate to say it mate but your age is showing to me down at the bottom of the column.

[Frenger]

. You would think it's obvious by now that if you haven't found intermediate species by now, it's unlikely to happen.

But they have been found. The best lineage we have is the evolution from Ardipithicus Ramedus to the australapithicines arriving here, at Homo Sapiens.



Another good example of an transitional fossil is the tiktaalik.

http://www.cell-o.or.../ahlberg06a.pdf

Which is a transitional species between water dweller and land animal mostly resembling a lizard (crocodile)





We do have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils, these, I think, are just a couple of nice examples.

Hope this helps

[Ophiolite]

In post #32 Tangle said this
“Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat (sic) response.”

In response to this (post #39) Upsalla Dragby asks
“What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?”

And in the next post (post #40) Gilbo asks
“Yeah a bit hard to do when you claim to be 21..... Why lie on your profile?

These prompted me to post this (post # 44 )
“I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )”

Ron, you then posted this:
“I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a misunderstandings on your part.”

There is no misunderstanding Ron. As I make clear in my post #44 we are required to specify our age when signing up to the forum. So Tangle was asked for his age and I was making no false accusation.

At no time was I addressing whatever the issue was about New Age Atheist, or whatever the term was. As should be very clear from my post (44) my concern was over the issue of being asked ones age. I have misrepresented nothing and misunderstood nothing relative to the point of the issue of being asked ones age.
It might have been more appropriate for me to raise this in the sub-forum about forum management. And I indicated that uncertainty by opening post #44 with the comment that my observations were off topic for the thread. None of you told me to do so.

While I can understand that, focused as you were on the issue of Tangle's other behavior, you might think my observations revolved around the same centre. They didn’t and they don’t.

I shall address the points raised by some of you about equivocation in another post.

[gilbo12345]

In post #32 Tangle said this
“Oh, and as I confessed, earlier, I'm not 21, I'm considerably older. (i thought it an impertinent question so it got an impertinat (sic) response.”

In response to this (post #39) Upsalla Dragby asks
“What exactly was so impertinent about the question that you felt justified to lie?”

And in the next post (post #40) Gilbo asks
“Yeah a bit hard to do when you claim to be 21..... Why lie on your profile?

These prompted me to post this (post # 44 )
“I am aware that this is off the topic of the thread, but I certainly consider asking someone their age is impertinent. If one wishes to participate in the forum one is then faced with the option of responding to an impertinent question and revealing private information, or lying. Tangle seemed to feel that ethically impertinent questions do not deserve an accurate reply. I think I would agree with him. (For the record I wouldn't have a problem being asked what (very) broad age range I fell in. )”

Ron, you then posted this:
“I hate to be a buzz-kill, but NO ONE asked Tangle for his age, you may want to read a little before making any false accusations, or commenting based upon a misunderstandings on your part.”

There is no misunderstanding Ron. As I make clear in my post #44 we are required to specify our age when signing up to the forum. So Tangle was asked for his age and I was making no false accusation.

At no time was I addressing whatever the issue was about New Age Atheist, or whatever the term was. As should be very clear from my post (44) my concern was over the issue of being asked ones age. I have misrepresented nothing and misunderstood nothing relative to the point of the issue of being asked ones age.
It might have been more appropriate for me to raise this in the sub-forum about forum management. And I indicated that uncertainty by opening post #44 with the comment that my observations were off topic for the thread. None of you told me to do so.

While I can understand that, focused as you were on the issue of Tangle's other behavior, you might think my observations revolved around the same centre. They didn’t and they don’t.

I shall address the points raised by some of you about equivocation in another post.

And my question still went unanswered, (to my knowledge)...

Why lie?

[Ron]

Hate to say it mate but your age is showing to me down at the bottom of the column.

Actually, it is not Jay. That is an incorrect age.... Therefore my age IS NOT showing on the bottom of the column.